The role of the MUTCD has been something that I have thought a lot about in my 25 plus years as a professional. Several years ago when there was discussion about the potential to separate the Manual into two volumes, I agreed with the consensus that thought it was not a good idea. Yet upon more experience with its application as an engineer in the public sector, I appreciate the interest and the significant differences between a City Center or Business District where distinctly different levels of multimodal activity are expected. There are going to be cases where we have completely different goals (safety, equity, asset management) than our traditional aim related to mobility.
As a practitioner in a City that has multimodal policies, the MUTCD has at times been a barrier to getting to solutions that meet the goals of our community. The MUTCD has not kept pace with proven countermeasures and treatments that we use regularly to implement policies. I can assure you that I appreciate the need for research and believe we're not investing enough to change the document through peer reviewed studies. To this end, the City of Portland has done more work with our nearby universities (Oregon State University, Portland State University) and partners in the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) University Transportation Center (University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University, and University of Utah to name a few) than ever before.
But back to the MUTCD... In too many cases the language written that finds its way into the document continues to favor automobile traffic over other modes. In many cases, this isn't based on research. In the case of this NPA, there are many instances where the document is too strict or is not just not practical. The most recent example about how bicycle signals in the ITE Community is one such example. That language has stopped us from using federal funds to build bicycle signals in ways that we had been having success with for many years prior to the FHWA ruling.
The other problem that I will share is that cities that are required to follow the guidance of the MUTCD, those engineers are turned into the professionals that are essentially telling our politicians "No" much of the time, often without a clear reason why. So, as a practitioner that is asked to implement the goals of an urban area, the practitioners are faced with difficult questions about how to use treatments that are focused on safety vs. meeting the standards. Simply meeting the standards of the MUTCD or the guidance will not result in a safe system, which is the primary argument against moving forward with the current NPA. In my opinion, our role as engineers is not to dictate to political leaders what should be done, but to articulate the realm of possible. When asked to implement Vision Zero, I have to admit I was and remain skeptical, but it's not a smart career move to throw up my hands and say we just can't do it because the standards won't get us there. Having a mission like Vision Zero is similar to the Apollo 13 mission. To rescue the crew (our public), we need all of the partners working to this goal, we need all of the ingenuity to save lives, we didn't hear the Apollo 13 crew giving up and saying that they can't change the mission because it doesn't meet the federal standards and the crew can't be rescued.
Uniformity is critical for issues such as stop signs and freeway striping and signage where the risks of uncertainty are high. Yet, there are many cases where the strive for uniformity works counter to our local goals. The National Transportation Safety Board report entitled: "Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles" is a great example of this. A few quotes from the report focus on the guidance on speed limits in the 2009 MUTCD "may lead to higher operating speeds" and "the relationship between speed an injury severity is consistent and direct". This is why they have recommended changes to the Federal Highway Administration next edition of the MUTCD. It is also why the NTSB said "the current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety is lower than warranted". It's also why there is a tremendous effort through ITE to describe the importance of speed management.
The need for uniformity in urban areas where 20 mph speeds and the mixing of people walking and cycling adjacent to heavy vehicles and buses is easily debatable. If we are to improve on our safety record, we need to examine why we have the amount of traffic violence on our streets that we do and do more to address the thousands of people walking and cycling that are lost every year. The chapter on bicycles is a great example that while much improved is insufficient for meeting the needs of many of the practitioners in ITE community. Finally, as a cyclist and a practitioner who also teaches at Portland State University, I do not appreciate your characterization on bicyclists and their whims. I can assure you that I can easily find people to debate with about cycle length and clearance intervals just as easily as I can find someone that has an interest in bicycling facilities that are different than what we designed even 10 years ago. That's the evolution of an engineering practice based on evolving research.
We have a long ways to go in this profession to realizing our mission is safety of all users. I have to say that while this edition has some significant improvements, it seems we still have a distance to travel to realize that not all communities have the same goals and that we must continue to serve the needs of our communities and help shape the future of the profession and transportation in the societal context (ITE Mission Statement). |
No comments:
Post a Comment